First EPO users in the peloton?

[Cloxxki]

Actually, air resistance increase is determined by comparing the square of the velocity. For example, you double the speed you have 4 times more wind resistance.

Unfortunately, this is not as I have come to know aerodynamics in reality.
Cars are a good indicator. All car makers want to claim a high top speed for their car. Especially sports car makers will go to length to make their cars aerodynamic, to achieve high top speeds.
A low-cost 100bhp sports car (or small family car) will be content to reach 200kph/120mph. Name one that does <100bhp and >200kph.
Now, what's the least power you've seen on a car reaching bouble, 400kph (240mph)? I will just state that this just doesn't happen under 800bhp. Or I'd like to see one example. Seriously, those 800+bhp cars are very aerodynamic to get 360+kph. And you'll agree that while rolling resistance at 200kph is a small factor compared to air drag, it's in fact closer to proportionate to speed. With increased power, and speeds, the rolling resistance become increasingly less significant, and air drag rules pretty much the whole game.
100>800bhp to not quite double top speed. That's 3rd power, or worse.
The Bugatti Veyron I believe tells very precisely how much power it is using. It could be used to make a reliable power to speed graph for that particular vehicle.
On a bike, you'd need to figure out a flat road, no wind, 100W velocity and then see what power it takes to double that velocity eed. My hunch is you'll see 25kph for 100W, maybe a bit more. Good luck getting a good reading at 50kph (solo). 400W will not cut it unless you're really tiny. For me (real tall and not skinny) 50kph is well above my (best shape) VO2max of 500+W.
To get rolling resistance out even more, ride 150W and take velocity. Then see what seed you get for 600W. Can you get double velocity?

 

[ChrisE]

Unfortunately, this is not as I have come to know aerodynamics in reality.
Cars are a good indicator. All car makers want to claim a high top speed for their car. Especially sports car makers will go to length to make their cars aerodynamic, to achieve high top speeds.
A low-cost 100bhp sports car (or small family car) will be content to reach 200kph/120mph. Name one that does <100bhp and >200kph.
Now, what's the least power you've seen on a car reaching bouble, 400kph (240mph)? I will just state that this just doesn't happen under 800bhp. Or I'd like to see one example. Seriously, those 800+bhp cars are very aerodynamic to get 360+kph. And you'll agree that while rolling resistance at 200kph is a small factor compared to air drag, it's in fact closer to proportionate to speed. With increased power, and speeds, the rolling resistance become increasingly less significant, and air drag rules pretty much the whole game.
100>800bhp to not quite double top speed. That's 3rd power, or worse.
The Bugatti Veyron I believe tells very precisely how much power it is using. It could be used to make a reliable power to speed graph for that particular vehicle.
On a bike, you'd need to figure out a flat road, no wind, 100W velocity and then see what power it takes to double that velocity eed. My hunch is you'll see 25kph for 100W, maybe a bit more. Good luck getting a good reading at 50kph (solo). 400W will not cut it unless you're really tiny. For me (real tall and not skinny) 50kph is well above my (best shape) VO2max of 500+W.
To get rolling resistance out even more, ride 150W and take velocity. Then see what seed you get for 600W. Can you get double velocity?

I was only replying to your post where you stated wind speed is a cubed variable in the formula for air resistance. It is not.

The formula for calculating force from air resistance contains the variable velocity^2. Once the basic number is calculated, shape factors, material friction coefficients, etc. are applied to it to take into account the aerodynamic properties of what the force is being applied to. For example, as you know the factor for a flat plate will be higher than that of a round object, and the wind resistance on a smooth ball will be less than one that is not smooth.

As for the rest of your post, figuring out the total resisting forces on bicycle rider, and thus the power it takes to overcome those forces at a certain speed, is a very complex problem in fluid dynamics so I don't really care to go into it. The basic formula for power it takes to overcome air resistance is a cube of the velocity, so maybe that is where you were getting crossed up.

For the sake of this thread, yes there is less wind resistance due to the slower speed climbing vs TT, but that is more than offset by the work required to gain altitude vs a flat TT. The power required to overcome gravity on a typical gradient dwarfs that of wind resistance at these speeds.

How an increase in power from a PED would effect the relative times over a whole GT for climbing and TT would depend on the time doing each, the freshness of the rider (a rider starts a TT fresh, vs their condition on a last climb of a stage), and other variables such as the real time health of the rider. These guys aren't robots, and they have bad days.

It does not surprise me that GL was closer in the TT's in 91 because it was much less time TT'ing than climbing, and he was able to start fresh in the TT. Perhaps he also had a bad day the day Chiapucci and Indurain took all that time at Val Lauron. Look at the people that finished above GL that year...Mottet, Fignon, AH finished with nearly the same time. Something was not right with him.

 

[Merckx index]

there is less wind resistance due to the slower speed climbing vs TT, but that is more than offset by the work required to gain altitude vs a flat TT. The power required to overcome gravity on a typical gradient dwarfs that of wind resistance at these speeds.

I think the point he was making is that power is proportional to speed on a climb that is sufficiently steep that wind resistance can be ignored. This is why one can calculate watts/kg directly from VAM. One cannot, of course, calculate watts/kg from horizontal meters per hour. As you note, on the flat, power is proportional to velocity cubed.

So to return to the original point, if a PES results in some given % increase in power, this will result in a greater % increase in speed on a climb than on the flat. To take an extreme example, a doubling of power would result in a doubling of speed on a climb. Whereas on the flat, it would result in an increase in speed of the cube root of two, or about 1.25 (that is, a 25% increase in speed).

Of course, as you note, all this is complicated by the fact that climbs are only part of a stage, and the rider's condition may not be the same as prior to an ITT. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to see that a PES is likely to result in a greater time gap on a climb than on an ITT.

Edit: Consider a more realistic situation, with a PES like EPO or blood doping resulting in a 10% increase in power. If the undoped rider can climb a certain MTF in 50’, then with a 10% increase in power, he can climb it in 45’27”. For a perfectly flat and windless ITT, a 10% increase in power means a 3.2% increase in speed (the cube root of 1.10 is ca. 1.032). If the undoped rider can do that ITT in 50’, then doped he will do it in 48’26”. So for a climb and an ITT that are done undoped in identical times, doping results in an improvement in the climb of 4’33”, and an improvement in the ITT of 1’34”. The doped climb has an advantage of 3’ over the doped ITT.

A further advantage can be obtained by losing weight, say through use of clenbuterol. Let’s suppose a rider using CB loses 5% of his body weight without any reduction in power. In conjunction with blood doping, the resulting increase in power/weight is 15.8% (1.10/0/95). He can now do the climb in 43’10”, a decrease of 6’50” over the original 50’. In the case of the ITT, the weight loss per se does not matter. What increases speed is reduction of body cross section, since that results in less wind resistance. Since cross section increases with the square of height, while weight increases by the cube, if the weight loss in uniform, it will result in a decrease in cross section of the 2/3 root of the weight loss, that is, the cube root squared. So a 5% weight loss results in a 3.2% reduction in body cross-section. This corresponds to a 6.6% increase ins speed, or a decreased time of 3’18”. The difference wrt climbing is now 3’32”.

 

[spalco]

Listen man if you have anger issues that's your problem.

Willy Voet says the 80s drugs enabled a rider to ride to his ability. EPO allowed an average rider to ride like a champion. One day race a rider can beat a guy on EPO. Over three weeks with HCT naturally dropping, it's almost impossible for an EPO rider not to beat a clean rider, AT THAT LEVEL.

The crux of the argument is when EPO cam on the scene. Kimmage stopped in '89. No way whatsoever did he know about EPO in '89.
If you weren't on an Italian team, you were behind the times.

One thing I find interesting to think about is, that with the exception or possible exception of Delgado (clearly he wasn't clean, but was it EPO or just the "traditional" stuff?), EPO might not have been a decisive factor in the Tour de France until 1996 considering Le Mond has an apparently impeccable reputation and Indurain still has a very good one as well.

Is it overly optimistic to deduce from that that it might be possible to still win without drugs now as well? Or maybe once again win without drugs?

At the very least this is an argument against the general presumption of guilt imo.

 

[ChrisE]

I think the point he was making is that power is proportional to speed on a climb that is sufficiently steep that wind resistance can be ignored. This is why one can calculate watts/kg directly from VAM. One cannot, of course, calculate watts/kg from horizontal meters per hour. As you note, on the flat, power is proportional to velocity cubed.

So to return to the original point, if a PES results in some given % increase in power, this will result in a greater % increase in speed on a climb than on the flat. To take an extreme example, a doubling of power would result in a doubling of speed on a climb. Whereas on the flat, it would result in an increase in speed of the cube root of two, or about 1.25 (that is, a 25% increase in speed).

Of course, as you note, all this is complicated by the fact that climbs are only part of a stage, and the rider's condition may not be the same as prior to an ITT. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to see that a PES is likely to result in a greater time gap on a climb than on an ITT.

No excuse for my poor omission of the point that is easy to see..to solve for velocity on the flat is the cube root of power, compared to the basic assumptions on affects of negligible wind resistance on climbs, which makes it approach linearity (if there is such a word).

I agree with your assessment that the math shows PEDs to have more affect on climbing, along with the other variables I listed.

 

[blutto]

No excuse for my poor omission of the point that is easy to see..to solve for velocity on the flat is the cube root of power, compared to the basic assumptions on affects of negligible wind resistance on climbs, which makes it approach linearity (if there is such a word).

I agree with your assessment that the math shows PEDs to have more affect on climbing, along with the other variables I listed.

...one of those issues is the energy expended to maintain core temperature...it goes up as speed goes down and workload remains high...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Dave_1]

There is a tape of Lemond at a Tour (1991?) where he noticed the speeds becoming astronomical. He said more than once he had never seen a tour where riders were going so hard and so fast for so long, stage after stage. And the mountain stages hand't begun yet. No one bothered to question what was happening right before their very eyes.

This was the beginning of the so-called "Italian Renaissance", where the Italians began winning or playing major roles in almost every major race on the international calendar.

Chiappucci to me was the first Italian who made a mockery of the Tour and of his limited talents, having been a relative nobody for 4 years up until 1990 then suddenly becoming a star with his ridiculous, drug-fueled attacks.

Chiapucci had a 10 minute lead gifted to him with Massen, Bauer, Pensec on stage 1 or so of 1990 TDF. Chiapucci luckily rode like an idiot in the pyrenees so lost it, thank god. I agree..he used EPO in 1990 but he was so full of ego he had to showboat off the front on the stage to Luz Ardiden and burn his matches all at once and Greg could finish him off. The fact Chiapucci couldnt hang on on the road to Saint Etienne when likely full of EPO shows he was pretty average with it on certain days. Indurain won at Luz of course..but we had known he was coming for 5, 3 , even1 year before he won at Luz in 1990..Chiapucci..nobody had ever heard of him. Indurain would have been good without EPO, Chiapucci would not have.

 

[Digger]

One thing I find interesting to think about is, that with the exception or possible exception of Delgado (clearly he wasn't clean, but was it EPO or just the "traditional" stuff?), EPO might not have been a decisive factor in the Tour de France until 1996 considering Le Mond has an apparently impeccable reputation and Indurain still has a very good one as well.Is it overly optimistic to deduce from that that it might be possible to still win without drugs now as well? Or maybe once again win without drugs?

At the very least this is an argument against the general presumption of guilt imo.

Indurain was doped believe me. Strong links to doping.

And outside of that some say the reason he quit in 1996 was due to the 50% rule coming in. No way in the world anyone won in the 1990s without EPO. No way. He beat people like Pantani and Ugrumov who were at the 60% mark.

 

[Gregga]

Chiapucci had a 10 minute lead gifted to him with Massen, Bauer, Pensec on stage 1 or so of 1990 TDF. Chiapucci luckily rode like an idiot in the pyrenees so lost it, thank god. I agree..he used EPO in 1990 but he was so full of ego he had to showboat off the front on the stage to Luz Ardiden and burn his matches all at once and Greg could finish him off. The fact Chiapucci couldnt hang on on the road to Saint Etienne when likely full of EPO shows he was pretty average with it on certain days. Indurain won at Luz of course..but we had known he was coming for 5, 3 , even1 year before he won at Luz in 1990..Chiapucci..nobody had ever heard of him. Indurain would have been good without EPO, Chiapucci would not have.

Indurain would have been excellent on one-day races or short stages-races like Paris-Nice but would have never been a TdF winner without EPO in my opinion... Sure we could see him coming, in 86 he won the Tour de l'Avenir but was struggling to save his jersey in the Izoard. Ten years later, at 32, he won the same stage in the Dauphiné, leaving Jalabert far behind him in the steepest part of the Izoard.

I agree with you about Chiappucci who exactly ride as an idiot, and became an ordinary rider after 1995, when EPO was used by everybody, and totally disappeared when the 50% limit was set.

 

[blutto]

Indurain would have been excellent on one-day races or short stages-races like Paris-Nice but would have never been a TdF winner without EPO in my opinion... Sure we could see him coming, in 86 he won the Tour de l'Avenir but was struggling to save his jersey in the Izoard. Ten years later, at 32, he won the same stage in the Dauphiné, leaving Jalabert far behind him in the steepest part of the Izoard.

I agree with you about Chiappucci who exactly ride as an idiot, and became an ordinary rider after 1995, when EPO was used by everybody, and totally disappeared when the 50% limit was set.

...perfect examples....in 86 Indurain was about 190 lb...and then dropping Jalabert who was such a great climber ( for a former sprinter )...case closed...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Cloxxki]

Thanks MI, that's exactly what I meant to express. Thanks CE for teaching me the English terms for this math stufff. I think in Dutch, and only have formal high school education.

That Greg Lemond was able to play a role despite the EPO era happening around high is explained by his VO2. There have been legendary riders with 90% or less of his capacity. Heck, some won the darn thing in France 7 times in a row after showing limited talent (1 day wonders) early in their careers.
Now I am not an untalented athlete myself. Being clean, and barely eating healthily ever or using proper supplements, I had a confirmed VO2Max of 506W at 82kg, in the extra lazy off-season. I had a day job. On running shoes and toe clips, steady 98rpm because the docs told me to pick a cadance and stick with it. I could have done better, especially in later years, especially if I had a trainer to make me do the right things. Anyway, I was a more than decent climber on a good day, but even with EPO I would not keep up with Greg Lemond I'm sure. Too big of a talent gap. Around 2000, I thought pro was just not my kind of level, as all the pro's just dusted me with such a huge margin, it was not funny. Unsurmountable with training and nutricion. But, only the likes of GL really are that way because of training and nutricion. In the winter, when they were off the juice, I could mix it up with the pro's even in prize events. Greg probably still smokes me today though, big gut and all. Sports was never meant to be fair, but cheating is keeping born winners from doing their things unless doped up as well. Few get a talent gap over the rest of their league to compensate for hardcore blood doping.

 

[Dave_1]

Indurain would have been excellent on one-day races or short stages-races like Paris-Nice but would have never been a TdF winner without EPO in my opinion... Sure we could see him coming, in 86 he won the Tour de l'Avenir but was struggling to save his jersey in the Izoard. Ten years later, at 32, he won the same stage in the Dauphiné, leaving Jalabert far behind him in the steepest part of the Izoard.

I agree with you about Chiappucci who exactly ride as an idiot, and became an ordinary rider after 1995, when EPO was used by everybody, and totally disappeared when the 50% limit was set.

yes. Chiapucci and Bugno have nearly identical form. Bugno starts wins Giro 1990, 2nd in TDF 1991 and then has bad off form day at TDF 1992 and is never again a GC force..a has been as a GC contender. Chiapucci appears in 1990 and finished as a real GC contender in 2 years as well. Chiapucci has a bad 1993 TDF, cracking bad and not anywhere near his 1990-1992 form. They have an identical form curve BUT at least Bugno gave some warning he would be good...stage win at 1988 TDF, and top 10 at 1989 TDF but still no big hitter as a GC rider. Agree re Indurain, he would not have won 1 TDF or Giro had his career happened 10 years earlier or happen now.

 

[GJB123]

I watched and read and rooted for Greg, and I saw him slow down. Go back and read the old interviews with Greg pre tour and post tour. Greg talking about lack of sleep due to sponsor stuff and health issues and this and that.
Lots of magazine coverage back then. I have an stack those old mags. 10 feet tall lol.

Big Mig kicked everyone's ****. Not by climbing mind you. But by being tough as nails and a BEAST on his TT bici's. Greg's fastest TdF victory was faster than most of Big Mig's you know.

But what REALLY disappoints me is the OMERTA back when EPO first kicked in. Riders knowing about team wide doping programs and not raising the flag. As a fan, I was totally clueless until EPO took root and spread. There was no mention of EPO doping in the press until it was too late. WHY DIDN'T SOME RIDERS BACK THEN RAISE THE FLAG. Send some letters or something. Riders died and no one said a peep for crying out loud. Almost criminal.

The results would not have changed though. Even if some one broke omerta - Big Mig STILL would have ruled over all. Patron. And a nice guy

Edwig Van Hooydonck did during 1995 and 1996. He retired because he couldn't compete with the juiced up riders anymore and refused to join in. He was mocked as being a sore loser.

Regards
GJ

 

[hrotha]

Actually I remember at least one article from early 1994 where riders called BS on the performance of Italian riders in the classics, and explicitly blamed EPO, rhetorically wondering whether they should get on the gear and risk a heart attack.

 

[Dave_1]

Actually I remember at least one article from early 1994 where riders called BS on the performance of Italian riders in the classics, and explicitly blamed EPO, rhetorically wondering whether they should get on the gear and risk a heart attack.

Argentin could have won Fleche or Liege before EPO was invented..he shows up in 1983 in classics but the 3 of them together, Furlan, Berzein...and then in 2000 Ullrich, Kloeden, Vino of Telekom...looked really odd

I slot Bugno and Indurain in with Argentin..they would have won big without EPO..it's who wouldn't have that I wonder about

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

it's who wouldn't have that I wonder about

Museeuw, never had the class of for example Eric Vanderaerden but yet his trophy cabinet is much fuller. That Mapei/Lefevre scam was one of the worst ever seen.

 

[Dave_1]

Museeuw, never had the class of for example Eric Vanderaerden but yet his trophy cabinet is much fuller. That Mapei/Lefevre scam was one of the worst ever seen.

Yes, I agree re Museeuw. How about Rominger? I don't believe he could have won a grand tour in any other era

 

[rghysens]

it's who wouldn't have that I wonder about

Berzin, Bobrik, Gabriele Colombo, Riis, Ferrigato, Gontchenkov, Ugrumov, Jalabert wouldn't be half what he was, Museeuw neither, Gianetti, Tafi, Bartoli, Olano,...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Rominger?

First of all, I have to say I am quite dedicated to 'the analysing' of riders carreers. With the information available, and with my own recollection of the many races I watched as a teenager or later fullgrown I must say I have a pretty good idea what pro - cycling is about since lets say 1991. Most of my sources are also public so there can't be any dispute about that.

Tony Rominger. I actually liked the mouse man, he wasn't good enough to upset Indurain but he tried.

Lets look at his carreer. Started pro in 1986 at the little team of Cilo - Aufina in Switserland, teammate of the may I say liferisking doper Mauro Gianetti. Won three little courses in Switserland that year. Transferred to Supermercati Brianzoli - Chateau d'Ax in the winter, Gianluigi Stanga, teammanager of numerious dopers must have seen his talent, note, Rominger was 26 at that time...

At Supermercati Brianzoli - Chateau d'Ax, lets just call it Chateau d'Ax, or Stanga for the matter, saves me time for more important things, At Stanga 1987 I must say he did have some nice results, but, always in the pre - season. Also a decent TT. Maybe here his hay fevor story was born?

In 1988 Rominger makes quite good progress, winning several courses in mainly the spring, gets a decent result in the Giro's TT, but, in august gets a great result in the GP of Zurich. Isn't august in the hay fevor season?
Or is it just the second season at Stanga and dottore Claudio Sprenger?

In 1989, Rominger really hits it off, even becoming second in the UCI world rankings, great in the spring, even destroying the opposition in the Giro di Lombardia. Even he couldn't conquer King Kelly. Who writes this stuff, really.

Note, in 1990, his teammate the good old Gianni 'never proven to EPO'd Bugno' wins the UCI World Cup...

I can go on and on about Rominger's carreer, but suddenly in 1992 he finds a way to overcome his hay fever and suddenly becomes a GT challenger, lol.

In fact, Rominger, a known client of Conconi/Ferrrari [do we know the precise client lists of those alchemists?], got the go ahead of Conconi and suddenly won 4 Grand Tours and was only beaten by Miguel 'dr Padilla' Indurain. What a farce.

But, to consider, I have seen hematocrit readings of Rominger from early 1990's that were far below the Gewiss 'standard'.

In my opinion Rominger was a big 'juicer', maybe even a project but what I am really interested in is who team doctor of Clas - Cajastur was way back in 1992. He somehow got Tony's hay fevor out of the way. He must be a real magician.

Ow, wait, it was this guy:
http://www.dopeology.org/people/Iñaki_Arratibel/

What a great man this Spanjard, Festina, Banesto, Once, Phonak. All coincidences.

 

[Dave_1]

First of all, I have to say I am quite dedicated to 'the analysing' of riders carreers. With the information available, and with my own recollection of the many races I watched as a teenager or later fullgrown I must say I have a pretty good idea what pro - cycling is about since lets say 1991. Most of my sources are also public so there can't be any dispute about that.

Tony Rominger. I actually liked the mouse man, he wasn't good enough to upset Indurain but he tried.

Lets look at his carreer. Started pro in 1986 at the little team of Cilo - Aufina in Switserland, teammate of the may I say liferisking doper Mauro Gianetti. Won three little courses in Switserland that year. Transferred to Supermercati Brianzoli - Chateau d'Ax in the winter, Gianluigi Stanga, teammanager of numerious dopers must have seen his talent, note, Rominger was 26 at that time...

At Supermercati Brianzoli - Chateau d'Ax, lets just call it Chateau d'Ax, or Stanga for the matter, saves me time for more important things, At Stanga 1987 I must say he did have some nice results, but, always in the pre - season. Also a decent TT. Maybe here his hay fevor story was born?

In 1988 Rominger makes quite good progress, winning several courses in mainly the spring, gets a decent result in the Giro's TT, but, in august gets a great result in the GP of Zurich. Isn't august in the hay fevor season?
Or is it just the second season at Stanga and dottore Claudio Sprenger?

In 1989, Rominger really hits it off, even becoming second in the UCI world rankings, great in the spring, even destroying the opposition in the Giro di Lombardia. Even he couldn't conquer King Kelly. Who writes this stuff, really.

Note, in 1990, his teammate the good old Gianni 'never proven to EPO'd Bugno' wins the UCI World Cup...

I can go on and on about Rominger's carreer, but suddenly in 1992 he finds a way to overcome his hay fever and suddenly becomes a GT challenger, lol.

In fact, Rominger, a known client of Conconi/Ferrrari [do we know the precise client lists of those alchemists?], got the go ahead of Conconi and suddenly won 4 Grand Tours and was only beaten by Miguel 'dr Padilla' Indurain. What a farce.

But, to consider, I have seen hematocrit readings of Rominger from early 1990's that were far below the Gewiss 'standard'.

In my opinion Rominger was a big 'juicer', maybe even a project but what I am really interested in is who team doctor of Clas - Cajastur was way back in 1992. He somehow got Tony's hay fevor out of the way. He must be a real magician.

Ow, wait, it was this guy:
http://www.dopeology.org/people/Iñaki_Arratibel/

What a great man this Spanjard, Festina, Banesto, Once, Phonak. All coincidences.

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you. One other thing, he banned all media from the Bordeaux velodrome where he broke the hour record on a standard bike with tri bars in 1994. I can guess why. He had to get doped to get the record so needed Drs track side and no media seeing his entourage!

 

[Dave_1]

Berzin, Bobrik, Gabriele Colombo, Riis, Ferrigato, Gontchenkov, Ugrumov, Jalabert wouldn't be half what he was, Museeuw neither, Gianetti, Tafi, Bartoli, Olano,...

Good and fair list you put together there. Just a few comments,,was Jalabert quite good in 1989, before EPO?? He would have had a decent career without EPO if the others had been clean too maybe??. Riis won a stage of the Giro in 1989, before EPO but he would never have won a grand tour ever without recourse to doping.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you. One other thing, he banned all media from the Bordeaux velodrome where he broke the hour record on a standard bike with tri bars in 1994. I can guess why. He had to get doped to get the record so needed Drs track side and no media seeing his entourage!

I wanna see this article:

Team doctors:
* who are they
* what do they do

Dated 1996.

Last week I saw a video from that World Record in Bordeaux. Guess who took his blood sample after the race, couldn't it be dottore Ferrari?

Dirty mouse.

Berzin, Bobrik, Gabriele Colombo, Riis, Ferrigato, Gontchenkov, Ugrumov, Jalabert wouldn't be half what he was, Museeuw neither, Gianetti, Tafi, Bartoli, Olano

And on, and on, and on. Not ending with the big Texan, he just was there while others made it happen.

 

[pmcg76]

I wanna see this article:

Team doctors:
* who are they
* what do they do

Dated 1996.

Last week I saw a video from that World Record in Bordeaux. Guess who took his blood sample after the race, couldn't it be dottore Ferrari?

Dirty mouse.


And on, and on, and on. Not ending with the big Texan, he just was there while others made it happen.

I have that issue of Cycle Sport, the articles in question are nowhere near as insightful as one would wish but remember this was pre Festina so the lid was still firmly on. However it was around 1996 when journalists really started to question the effects of EPO.

We have already had a full discussion on Rominger.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13956

I posted in this one a few times and highlighted the fact that Rominger did have talent pre EPO but he still was a major benefactor of EPO, he just wasnt a donkey like Chiappucci or Riis and had shown more in GTs than Lance ever had before he started performing at that level.

 

[slowspoke]

I've been watching the old wcp tours on YouTube. In the 1993 edition they do a feature on tony and his doctor Ferarri! They are film at the table together. They give Ferarri credit for curing Tony's allergies.

 

[GJB123]

Although I am not sure he would have been as good as he was without the juice, I really do still like Bartoli. One of the most elegant riders ever to sit on a bike. Poetry in motion. I can forgive a lot more when a rider sits on his bike like Bartoli.

Regards
GJ

PS I see Breukink mentioned time and again as a rider who benefitted from EPO to get an otherwise mediocre career going. I think that is wholly incomplete as Breukink was a quite good GT contender in his won right in the late 80's in his Panansonic-days. More remarkable is that his career wasn't really revived when joined a notorious team like Once, indicating he might not be the heavy juicer he is made out to be.